Posts
McCainiac No More: Why This Maverick is Voting Obama
By Marty Beckerman / November 3, 2008
Perhaps it was a circus act for the gullible and schmaltz-inclined, but the Sen. John McCain of 2000 combined the best characteristics of Superman (a hero who defended Truth, Justice and the American Way), Batman (a zillionaire with a dark past who fought corruption wherever it lurked), and Wolverine (a stocky, grizzled, hard-drinking veteran with berserker rage, but still awesome).
In 2008, however, McCain combines the worst characteristics of Lex Luthor (hollow lust for power, evil henchmen, bald), the Joker (impulsive, belligerent, plays people against one another, unserious) and the X-Men villain Apocalypse (he will bring about the apocalypse).
McCain once made you proud to call yourself an American, and it wasn’t demagogic pride (“with us or against us,” “love it or leave it,” “for the troops or against the troops”) but the real thing. He inspired millions of people with his story of sacrifice and service, and defined himself by his honesty and "maverick" yet moderate positions on the issues. His candidacy derailed when George W. Bush’s goons infamously spread whispers of a brown lovechild whom McCain had actually adopted. As this hideous decade progressed—from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib to Hurricane Katrina to the merciless evisceration of the U.S. Constitution—many of us said to ourselves, “If only McCain were in charge…”
Since 2000, however, McCain has devolved like a post-Atomic Holocaust science-fiction zombie into a grotesque McCarthyite (McCainthyite?) parody. Whereas he once played to centrist Americans—the silent majority who cannot stand “agents of intolerance” whether their names are Farrakhan or Falwell—presently he panders to the most regressive elements of our culture and the most vile aspects of our human nature.
McCain took a bloody shit all over his legacy, and chose to empower the darkest corners of the American Right over the American mainstream. He put all his eggs into the Rabid Mutant Basket, assuming the overzealous radicals would show on Election Day instead of the lazy normal people. If you prefer the Enlightenment over the Dark Ages—Truth over Lies, Hope over Fear, Unity over Hate—the John McCain of 2008 wants you to go fuck yourself.
It hurts me to type this—genuinely hurts—because I once worshipped at the McAltar. (As I make clear in my new book Dumbocracy: Adventures with the Loony Left, the Rabid Right and Other American Idiots I’m a bit of a maverick myself; in the words of Chris Rock, "Crime? I’m conservative. Prostitution? I’m liberal!") Goddamnit, John McCain, why did you break my heart worse than any woman I’ve ever loved? Why did you fellate George W. Bush more furiously in the past eight years than the First Lady since their wedding day?
Back in April McCain “pledged to conduct a respectful campaign,” promising to focus on the issues instead of questioning the loyalty and character of his opponent as the GOP questioned Sen. John Kerry’s in 2004. McCain took the high road, which Americans shockingly appreciate this year, and then he realized he would lose the election to Sen. Barack Obama, so McCain panicked and made a deviant blood pact with the Lord of the Underworld:
“LUCIFER, HEAR MY PLEA!” McCain bellowed to the Fallen Angel, naked and shivering and covered in his own geriatric spermatozoa. “I NEED A MIRACLE… I NEED A GODSEND… I NEED A YOU-SEND!”
“YES, MCCAIN, I HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU,” said the Dark Prince. “MY DEMONIC BRIDE, ALASKA GOV. SARAH PALIN, WHO IS YOURS FOR A SMALL PRICE: YOUR SOUL, MCCAIN, YOUR ETERNAL SOOOOUUUUL…”
And lo, the wretched bargain was sealed, but McCain forgot that deals with the devil tend to backfire, especially when you are covered in Septuagenarian Man Juice.
Palin looked perfect on paper: a young, popular female governor who would appeal to religious conservatives, gun owners, small town residents, soccer/hockey moms, bitter Hillary Clinton supporters (are there any other kind?) and guys who like to jerk off (there are not any other kind). Nobody in D.C. expected McCain to nominate her—nobody had heard of her, other than Alaskans like me—and she caused immediate waves of excitement throughout the country. Pundits declared her selection a political masterstroke.
Palin could not identify a Supreme Court decision besides Roe v. Wade. She could not name a newspaper or magazine she reads. She recently traveled abroad for the first time. She believes the First Amendment protects politicians from criticism, as opposed to protecting critics from politicians. With a corruption investigation underway, and accusations of censorship, cronyism, religious extremism, and the tendency to fire any public official who disagreed with her, the truth swiftly became apparent: she was Bush with a bush. (Update: I thought this was mildly clever, but "Bush with a bush" gets 1,680 hits on Google. Also, she might wax.)
Her initial approval numbers plunged; she became a liability to McCain and an embarrassment to everyone but the most extreme right-wing diehards who embraced her wholeheartedly as a symbol of their myriad resentments against modernity, the scientific process, proper usage of the English language, etc.
You felt bad for her—she seemed like a normal person who had been picked off the street and expected to master geopolitics overnight—and perhaps you felt guilty for judging her. You might have searched your soul and wondered if you’re a know-it-all snob who looks down on regular folks from your cosmopolitan pedestal. Hey, if you were given a pop quiz on national TV, you would probably fail too; personally I’d rather not reveal my batting average for Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
However, you are not trying to convince hundreds of millions of Americans you are qualified for the second highest office in the land, and Palin is far too malicious to deserve our pity. Just as Bush is a divider, not a “uniter,” Palin exploited the time-tested strategies of the GOP playbook; she made this election about City Moose vs. Country Moose. If you question the Republican Party, you are an “elitist,” but if you never question the Republican Party—even when it shreds the Bill of Rights and amalgamates Church and State—you are “pro-America.”
Palin is the darkness in Plato’s cave, which is a reference she would probably need explained to her. She would have fed the hemlock to Socrates. She would have imprisoned Galileo. She would have prosecuted Scopes. If she were born in
Americans have a tendency to vote for candidates who seem “just like me,” or remind us of our beer-drinking buddies, which explains the (initial) popularity of Bush and Palin. Our electoral narcissism is understandable but ludicrous; the vast majority of us are obviously not qualified for the White House. It is not “elitism” to observe this; it is reality. I have plenty of beer-drinking buddies, none of whom would receive my vote for anything, not even designated driver.
“Someone called me a redneck woman once and you know what I said back?” Palin recently asked a crowd of supporters. “‘Why, thank you.’”
Is this how a potential president of the
Conservatives used to believe in meritocracy; they opposed racial and gender quotas in the workplace on the principle that the most qualified person should get the job, no matter his or her physical characteristics. Modern right-wingers, however, loathe expertise of any kind. Their only concern is propagating their Orgy of Hate: for scientists, for teachers, for journalists, for immigrants, for the poor, for sexuality, for civilization itself.
It’s a vicious circle: the more McCain alienates centrist voters, the more feverishly he must court the extremists, in turn alienating more centrist voters, requiring him to further court the weirdos. McCain and Palin have consequently unleashed a vicious mob mentality which might not expire on November 5th. When McCain finally tried to calm one of his psychotic xenophobic crowds, the testosterone-filled degenerates booed him for saying Obama is a “decent person…”
According to Palin, Obama “sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists,” “is hiding his real agenda,” “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist,” and is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” When not insinuating Obama is the Antichrist, the McCain-Palin campaign accuses Obama of supporting sexual education for kindergarteners—as if he were some kind of pervert—even though Obama actually proposed teaching children how to identify and avoid pedophiles. When the hard-hitting journalists at The View asked McCain to disown the ad, the
While Obama has condemned and distanced himself from the left-wing extremists in his party and in his past, McCain spoke at Jerry Falwell’s university and proudly accepted the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who declared Hurricane Katrina God’s punishment on
As the lunatics take over the GOP asylum, conservative intellectuals are fleeing: former Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Review royalty Christopher Buckley, Washington Post columnist George Will, Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan, former Bush spokesman Scott McClellan and former Bush speechwriter David Frum… the guy who came up with the nuanced, levelheaded phrase “axis of evil.”
In the politically correct ‘90s conservatives had some legitimate gripes: overzealous speech codes, frivolous lawsuits, Orwellian sensitivity training, punitive vice taxes and other government overreach. Left-wingers were often the angry and scary ones—moderates sympathized with Republicans—but this is no longer the case. The pendulum has swung too far to the right; it must come back to the center. The Republican Party of 2008 loathes freedom of speech, pursuit of happiness, separation of church and state, equality under the law and liberty for all. Wrap yourself in the flag all you want, but voting for the modern GOP is as unpatriotic as it gets.
For the last decade Republicans have equated dissent with treachery, sophistication with subversion and prudence with surrender. They worship the symbols of patriotism—the flag and the anthem and the pledge, as if no other countries have these things—but not the meaning of
The world is an insanely complex place, but True Believers on the Right cannot process concepts deeper than Patriotism vs. Treason, God-Loving vs. God-Hating, Capitalist vs. Communist, Good vs. Evil, Us vs. Them. At the final presidential debate McCain referred to the “pro-abortion” stance, as if the majority of our citizenry supports infanticide for supporting Roe v. Wade. This is ridiculous; most of us only support terminating babies when we’re stuck inside a movie theater with one. (McCain opposed overturning Roe in 1999. Was he for abortion before he was against it?)
Facing economic collapse thanks to our voracious greed—have you seen your credit card statement recently?—Americans have rejected the fantasy-based Culture War and finally asked for realistic solutions. Who cares if gay-married transsexuals are unfreezing embryonic stem cells and committing doctor-assisted suicide if nobody can afford bread and we’re cannibalizing one another for protein?
McCain deserved to win the Republican nomination (and perhaps the presidency) in 2000, but it’s no longer 2000. Yes, he is an American hero, but—much like the TV show Heroes—he has become over the top, inconsistent, badly scripted and embarrassing to watch. His Cold War understanding of the world is obsolete; his legendary temper is the last thing
I used to believe it didn’t matter what “foreigners” thought of us—our president doesn’t need a permission slip to defend the American people, blah blah blah—but since then I’ve traveled to Europe and Latin America and the Middle East, and I learned something which surprised me: many people in other countries want the U.S. to lead, want us to be Number One, want us to shine as a beacon of justice as we once did. The rest of the human race is begging us to elect Obama not because he will weaken our military or lessen our influence, which is impossible after eight years of Bush (unless we elect McCain); they want us to return to our founding values of freedom and equality. They resent us for betraying our ideals, not because of our ideals.
As our economic institutions crumble, we cannot survive as a nation divided by all-consuming hatred of our elected leaders and fellow citizens, but Hate is the only thing the Republican Party has to offer: unthinking populist ferocity which makes no distinction between civil discourse and civil war; the same blind, menacing frenzy which besieged Italy, Germany, Russia and China in the previous century. We are on the brink of irrelevance as a nation, but miraculously we have one final chance to avoid sinking into oblivion. We have one final chance to not act like a bunch of complete douche bags.
If you vote against Barack Obama, you are on the wrong side of history, just as Nero was on the wrong side of history when the
Yes, Obama has inspired a cult of personality, but sometimes such things are deserved; millions of teenyboppers loved the Beatles, forever the greatest band of all time. Obama possesses a top-tier intellect and Herculean self-control, which are qualifications, not disadvantages. And even if he does become the worldwide Islamo-Antichrist who gnaws upon the skulls of the Enslaved White Masses for breakfast, it wouldn’t be that much worse than Bush, right?
No man is perfect, no politician is pure of heart, but in 2008 we are not choosing between the lesser of two evils. The tragedy is that, if John McCain had stayed true to his character—assuming his former self was not a character—we could have chosen between the greater of two goods.
POST A COMMENT
Bock, bock, bock,
I smell the blood of a chickenhawk.
I don’t so much want to talk about John McCain, but, duh –
that’s what this thread was about until we were diverted to the topic of
Anonymous’s hatred for muslims, and his and the right’s comfort zone of fear
and paranoia and the constant and dubious assertion that invading a sovereign
nation to steal their oil is necessary to protect the homeland from al qaeda,
and that to do otherwise is to be ‘a romantic.’
Anyway, children must be dealt with on their own level, so,
to explain once again how out of touch a hard-right viewpoint is in all
particulars…
…the right loves to talk about drilling, but the truths are
that even if we did despoil ANWAR, it wouldn’t provide jack shit – what would
it be, a few months of oil? Less? We can’t drill our way out of this
problem. What we should have done a long
time ago is invested in alternative fuels, force green building codes and raise
CAFÉ standards, but Reagan dropped the ball after Carter got this agenda going,
because it’s easier politically to tell people what they want to hear.
Like a sleazy attorney you try to object that we aren’t ‘stealing’
oil from the Middle East, but the fact is that if Iraq hadn’t had the second
largest oil reserves in the world, we never would have been there (if humanitarian
concerns were real, Bush would’ve invaded Darfur and spent a tiny fraction of
the blood and treasure he’s pissed away in Iraq), and now that we are there, we
have guaranteed a hand on the oil supply and the terms of its sale. This (resource extraction) is the obvious and
underlying motive to America’s military movement toward the Middle East over
the past forty years, and military/CIA activity ever since World War II. Pointing out that the U.S. was on the right
side of WWII and the Cold War doesn’t excuse all the innocent blood that has
been shed so that we could consume resources from around the world grossly
disproportionate to our share of the population. This greed-driven bloodshed washes away and
dissolves your claim that it is the Muslims – who haven’t shown anywhere near
America’s interventionist inclinations – who the world should fear.
This ‘they’ you refer to was 19 men. It’s disingenuous – but for Anonymous, par
for the course — to conflate these 19 with the struggling billion Muslims
worldwide, most of whom would be happy to have shelter, regular meals and
peace. 15 of these 19 were from our
allies of six decades, Saudi Arabia; not a one of them was from Iraq. Telling me and whatever unlucky souls have to
read your psychobabble the numerous ways that us Westerners would prefer Muslim
societies to operate ignores the basic human right of self-determination: whatever we think of their cultures and
customs, we have no right to impose our life vision, and enforcing this at
gunpoint is hypocritical and counterproductive, as no imperial power has been
able to sustain control indefinitely.
Try Googling “World History 101.”
Well, they DID kill over three thousand people with only 19 guys and a few box cutters. Why do you suppose nothing similar has happened, here anyway, in the past 8 years? Do you suppose they just didn’t have the energy?
Don’t you think their people have a right to sell their oil? Maybe they want the money from that.
Wanting power is completely human, not subhuman. Maybe you think everybody should just stay put where they are, and do what they always did? I thought you were for progess. So nobody should migrate anywhere? (Don’t tell my Mexican friends that). Are you aware the Muslim world, a vast area, prays in Arabic because Arab people rode horseback well (they invented the stirrup!) and spread out all over the place from where they started? Not always spreading their ideas with sweet reason, either. EVERYBODY goes places. The very native Americans here came over from Asia through Alaska. Heck, your own ancestors came here from someplace.
You would prefer the US had not acquired the southern tier from Spain in that war? You would have preferred Columbus stayed home? The indigenous people of the Americas could all still be doing without airconditioning, painless childbirth, and only fighting with handmade weapons. Do you imagine they were nice, peaceful persons whose idyll was ruined? They were as unpleasant to each other as any other people. They would probably not like to go back to the human sacrifices of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans. My guess is they like being Catholic.
You are a bit of a romantic. As for McCain, he got lost somewhere. You want to talk about him? What’s to say?
Actually, I’m not "disappointed" per se that the country I live in has more military power — quite the contrary. I like being safe; I just don’t think colonizing third world countries is a necessary condition of my security.
Back to the obvious: 1) we have no inherent right to the world’s resources and 2) since you live in a country that has had clearly imperialistic aims since WWII if not earlier (see Spanish-American War), you’re not in a place to credibly accuse anyone else of having designs on world domination. This is so obvious a contradiction that I can only conclude that you have nothing else to do all day but check this site every five minutes to see if you’ve been again called on your transparent bullshit so that you can dribble more of your sophistry. Even if your dubious claim about Muslims being some kind of subhuman power-hungry mob was true, the fact is that the size of America’s military is such that our way of life is not remotely threatened. But hey, if you right-wingers didn’t have fear and paranoia to trade on you’d have nothing left, so I don’t blame you for trying.
(By the way, wasn’t this discussion supposed to be about John McCain? Why do right-wing extremists try so hard to change the subject?)
You seem to be upset that one side is better armed than the other. Well, what if it were not? Would we be having a nice day?
I read it, and I said I was quite willing to get my oil someplace else, such as the Arctic. You know very well those countries make tons of money from their oil. If they don’t distribute the wealth evenly to their populations, and their populations are poor, whose fault is that? Actually, we have been trying to introduce democracy into Iraq, and succeeding. When there is more democracy in that region, there might be a more active public sector, with the social activisms we have here. Concern for the people. Stuff like that.
You say we are stealing their oil. No, we pay them for it. I repeat, let’s not use it at all.
You are annoyed at American military presence, but I argue it needs to be where it is.
What’s the problem? What contradiction are you referring to?
It’s just one man against another. I prefer the man with one wife instead of many. So? I am entitled to my opinion. I disagree with you that it is one man against a poor lamb. No, they are both men. You really need to talk to Zeevico. He says, above:
Can Islamism compromise itself with liberalism? Of course not. The two fundamentally contradict one another by definition: And there is no question that Islamism is a very powerful force. But it is not the only force and it does not have a monopoly on those claiming to believe in the Islamic faith.
There have been Muslims pushing for same-sex marriage rights in Canada and in Indonesia. Many such liberals probably sympathise with secular liberals and join the same organisations.
I do not see why liberal Muslims need necessarily form their own political party–particularly when liberals are so oppressed in many Middle Eastern countries regardless. Suffice to say that while they may not number in the majority by any means, you may find liberal Muslims everywhere. Just Google the term for goodness sake.
Mr Anonymous,
Apparently you never read the previous post, because it’s so much easier to wallow in prejudice. Until you answer this fundamental contradiction, you have zero credibility:
Unfortunately, Mr. Anonymous, you’ve spent thousands of words claiming that Muslims want to take over the world, when the reality is that those with YOUR IDEOLOGY in YOUR COUNTRY are by far the worst imperialists. They lied to us repeatedly to invade Iraq and steal Iraq’s oil. They tried repeatedly to do the same to steal Iran’s oil, but too many in the Pentagon opposed it, as detailed by Sy Hersh. They supported a dictator in Pakistan (whose intelligence agencies are thick with al qaeda connections) that has done nothing to catch bin Laden. They likewise killed FBI investigations into complicity between Saudi royals and al qaeda, as reported by Greg Palast in the British press — you know Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed from. Before they were against Iraq, they were for it, giving them taxpayer money and arms, and before that the U.S. deposed an elected leader in Iran to put our ally in, just so we could have cheap oil.
This is only a quick list; the bigger point is that it is the U.S. that is pushing its military further and further into the muslim world, not the other way around. Your claims of muslim designs on world power are purely theoretical (and probably wrong), whereas the REALITY of U.S. designs on controlling the world’s resources is undeniable. In essence, not only are you a bigot — you’re a dishonest one at that.
People love to fight the last war. They know how it came out, they understand the issues. They are comfortable with it. They never fight the war they are in now. They always instinctively cling to fighting the LAST WAR.
You are doing that.
The last big war was about bigotry. WW II. The terrible Jews. Let’s kill them all. Blah blah. Such bad people. Bad puppies. When it was over, the (Western) world decided, no, that’s bad, let’s be tolerant. Fine. So, the people who have absorbed that hard-earned lesson are now granting tolerance to the intolerant.
PS, there is a direct historic link between the German Nazis of the 1930′s and the Muslim Mufti of that time. I think his name was Al-Husseini. The Mufti wasn’t blond, but he was enthusiastic about the Nazi program of killing every Jew. Yes, there were documented meetings, an alliance. Hitler is on record as saying that Islamifying Germany – or course it would only be a temporary servitude – would be a useful step.
Don’t call me crazy until you have Googled all that, and seen for yourself. If you are too scared to Google these matters, well, the next round is on you, and I’m having a very expensive cognac.
Why are you calling me a bigot? I respect everybody. But that doesn’t make all conflict go away! I have my reasons for preferring my side of the conflict. I am not a bigot at all. I can disagree with a way of life without denying the humanity of the people who like it. I don’t deny for a minute there are problems with what I do like. If one of them said to me, "well, what about your horrible Britney Spears", I would hang my head in shame. But I wouldn’t change sides. I just don’t buy Britney’s merchandise, and hope for a more moral culture here.
If Islam could be a private matter, do you think anybody would care how others pray or eat? But Islam is a way of life, and not a private matter. Polygamy, honor killings, a LOT of time taken out of the workday for prayer, prohibition of any dog in any taxi, even to guide the blind, any sealed bottle of liquor in a taxi, restrooms for religious washing not to be used by anybody else, no piggy banks or images of Piglet anywhere, marriage of under-age girls, including intimate physical contact with them (thigh-ing), riots with real deaths because some dude picks up a pen and draws a cartoon, and on, and on, well, that isn’t terribly do-able. There are two incompatible ways of life here, and it’s not OK.
My great friend Mr. Jefferson won’t allow it, and I personally would not survive very long, and I like surviving. I am a Jew, you see. And an uppity one. I don’t step aside on the street. I think I am as good as anybody, and that would not be healthy. It’s not ME that’s the bigot!
I have an OPINION. I am ALLOWED to have an opinion. HERE, anyway. This isn’t Europe. You can get in big trouble in Europe, including Britain, in certain settings, for speaking your mind, even quite civilly, about this. Serious legal trouble, including prison. God bless America.
Well, under which system are ordinary people be better off? The Muslim one or the US one? Answering that is not as easy as it looks! Sure, off the cuff, of course, people are much happier with airconditioning, painless childbirth, free elections, and women who can leave the house. But not everybody is so sold! The debate is real. Sure, both sides are pushing. We push, they push. They push with what they have, we push with what we have. I wonder why everybody wants to come here. Actually, nobody is let in, there.
Yes, the shenanigans are not pretty. Well, the human race will decide how it wants to live.
I don’t deny one little thing you said. It’s all true.
Well, I would have drilled in the Arctic (only a tiny percent of the Arctic would have been ruined) and not bought their oil at all. Henry Ford decreed, a hundred years ago, that the world shall run on oil. They owe him everything. Everything material, anway. They would like to keep their culture. If you think it’s so great, try it on for size. The ticket is one-way, however, so be careful.
You ought to talk to Zeevico, who says there are lots of voiceless liberal Muslims deep inside their territory who want a modified version of their way of life, or even a completely different way of life. HE seems to think they should be given a chance to have that, and do that. YOU seem to think those guys should be left alone.
The world is far more grateful for American policing than it is comfortable admitting, so stop fretting about that. We do the stuff we do because the alternative is worse.
Keeping you alive is the president’s first duty. The last one did. I hope the next one will, too. I have friends who do not want to either die or wear a tablecloth. They also like their bodies the way they are, if you get my meaning. They have no interest in sharing their husbands, and they like to drive cars.
Unfortunately, Mr. Anonymous, you’ve spent thousands of words claiming that Muslims want to take over the world, when the reality is that those with YOUR IDEOLOGY in YOUR COUNTRY are by far the worst imperialists. They lied to us repeatedly to invade Iraq and steal Iraq’s oil. They tried repeatedly to do the same to steal Iran’s oil, but too many in the Pentagon opposed it, as detailed by Sy Hersh. They supported a dictator in Pakistan (whose intelligence agencies are thick with al qaeda connections) that has done nothing to catch bin Laden. They likewise killed FBI investigations into complicity between Saudi royals and al qaeda, as reported by Greg Palast in the British press — you know Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers hailed from. Before they were against Iraq, they were for it, giving them taxpayer money and arms, and before that the U.S. deposed an elected leader in Iran to put our ally in, just so we could have cheap oil.
This is only a quick list; the bigger point is that it is the U.S. that is pushing its military further and further into the muslim world, not the other way around. Your claims of muslim designs on world power are purely theoretical (and probably wrong), whereas the REALITY of U.S. designs on controlling the world’s resources is undeniable. In essence, not only are you a bigot — you’re a dishonest one at that.
I did google the phrase "liberal Muslims". Do it yourself and see. The atmosphere of the list of links that comes up is one of anguished hand-wringing. Some daaaaay, they all seem to wail.
You posit the existence of lots of invisible Muslim liberals among the rank and file of non-Muslim liberal organizations. Have you actually been to meetings and seen them or talked to them?
Yes, they DO need their own, Muslim-defined banner, rallying point, party. They have THEIR OWN issue. But they don’t. My guess is it is too dangerous. Even prominent people get threatened hard; what hope is there for ordinary people? But if there were a LOT of them, they might. Maybe there AREN’T a lot of them.
Maybe Islam exists, Virginia, self-defined, not defined by others.
People used to joke about us needing another China, perhaps one located in Switzerland, because the China in China wasn’t obeying our script.
Your link is interesting, but he falls down here: "…Muslims almost always reject Islamist politics when they’re given the choice to vote for it. …" What twaddle. They voted for it resoundingly in Algeria, and in the Palestinian areas such as Gaza. First of all, that is how they really think. Second of all, it’s not healthy to do anything else in those places. HOWEVER, As I regard them as grown MEN, not idiots or slaves, I can only assume they are basically keeping in place the leadership that pleases them, or most of them. I have more respect for them than this writer, who seems to view them as captive puppies, poor things. That’s ridiculous and strains credulity. It contains a hidden airy dismissal of their viewpoint and history!
As for the miseries of being a Muslim in a non-Muslim country, they are extreme, as your link describes so well. Well, I wouldn’t do that if it were me. It’s too awful. I would either 1) stay in a Muslim area, and be myself, like my fathers before me, and work to address anything that was wrong with it, or 2) go to a non-Muslim area for economic and political/social reasons, being honest and realistic enough to admit that the non-Muslims there must be doing something right, somehow, or they wouldn’t have what I need, and I wouldn’t want to go there. NOBODY casually just ups and moves from the place, culture and language into which he was born without a very, very good reason.
The Jewish immigrants acknowledged the greatness of America over their native Russia and Poland. They appreciated it. If they stayed Torah-observant, they did so within American custom and law, and regarded their religious life as a private matter. They do NOT complain they can’t get decent borscht at McDonald’s.
Why do you accept Muslim chauvinism? You don’t like it when Americans complain they can’t get decent pizza in Paris or Bangkok. You expect Americans to remember that not everyplace is America. If they want pizza, they can get it at home. Why don’t you apply that bit of common sense to other people, also?
The Neturei Karta have about fifteen members. If you are reduced to dragging them in, it’s a sure sign you are losing this argument. They are useful in photo-ops, like Hollywood extras. You can find crazy people in absolutely any group, but that’s not the reality of the group. The Neutered Karta get no respect from any Jew anywhere, except from each other, all fifteen of them. The ones you see at parades are ALL of their members.
Of course Judaism has a bundle of core ideas from which everything under its banner springs in some way! Right, left, center, fur hat, felt hat, no hat, knitted kippah, peace-sign earrings, black leather kippah on women, all of it, they ALL have a common source. That doesn’t mean everybody is totally right, but it does mean they didn’t fall from the moon. They are part of The Jews, somehow. Maybe even wrongly. But they all spring from the Torah. They are not Eskimos.
Yes, there are cultural viewpoints, not just individual psychologies.
Liberal Muslims are not numerous enough, or vocal enough, or powerful enough, to mean anything, yet. They exist on the margin of society, hiding behind the West’s liberal protections, in Western areas, such as Canada. Their expressive effectiveness in a Muslim-majority area would be two days, if that long. Yes, there are liberal-ish small pockets tucked around, but they are few, and of no serious political importance. THEY ARE ALLOWED NO POWER. The strength and muscle of today’s Islam, across its billion members, living on one-sixth of the earth’s liveable surface, is not liberal, or West-leaning, in any way. And doesn’t want to be. Why do you assume everybody wants the same things? Some people want stability, unity, victory. They have NO interest in individualism, pluralism, cultural questioning, curiosity, or compromise. They don’t CARE about air-conditioning, painless childbirth, individual self-actualization or the free marketplace of ideas. That’s just not what they value in life. They have a right to their views. So does the West. Only one is going to be left standing, eventually. Unfortunately.
Your odd idea that Judaism has no philosophical stance oddly enough robs Islam of its character, also. You are not very respectful of other cultures! You deny they exist at all, basically.
Command societies are just feudalism in a new dress. Their utopianism appeals to the weary, family-stripped, members of industrialism, who cannot afford marriage and children. They appeal to the lonely. This is very sad. But, the only cure is to take the Sabbath off, and turn off the TV, and eat and pray with family and friends. or anyway, friends. Treating friends like family may even lead to actual family formation. And it’s better than nothing. I advocate Sabbath Capitalism. I advocate Orthodoxy with Round-Robbin Sabbath dinners with candle-lighting on Friday night, done the old-fashioned way, with all 39 prohibited labors. One house this week, another’s house next week, and so on around the neighborhood. But rules give it life. Just like in, say, chess. If the board went on forever in all directions, there would be no game. The limits give the dynamism.
I do not think that any religious text, such as the Koran or the Torah, contains a philosophical basis within it. I can take a Torah and become a Reform liberal Jew. I can take a Torah and join the Neturei Karta. Does the Torah have its own philosophical base? The members of the Neteurei Karta have a philosophy of life. The Reform Jews have a philosophy of life. There may have been believers in "Torah" Judaism a few thousand years ago. But with every passing day and new economic or technological development, Jews changed.
From this it follows that no religion can have a philosophical basis. You can no longer simply look to the Torah to see what to believe and be a ‘true’ Jew in society: you must look for the teachings of the Chasids, or the Orthodox, or the Haredim, or the Reform. The same goes with Islam and the Koran, its essential text. These books passed their due by date a long time ago. "Koranic" Islam, designed for a traders, nomads and Middle Eastern town living in 600 CE, is as relevant to modern society and to Muslims as is "Torah" Judaism, designed for a bunch of shephereds and farmers in Biblical times. Today people believe what they are taught or what suits them.
Can Islamism compromise itself with liberalism? Of course not. The two fundamentally contradict one another by definition: And there is no question that Islamism is a very powerful force. But it is not the only force and it does not have a monopoly on those claiming to believe in the Islamic faith.
There have been Muslims pushing for same-sex marriage rights in Canada and in Indonesia. Many such liberals probably sympathise with secular liberals and join the same organisations.
I do not see why liberal Muslims need necessarily form their own political party–particularly when liberals are so oppressed in many Middle Eastern countries regardless. Suffice to say that while they may not number in the majority by any means, you may find liberal Muslims everywhere. Just Google the term for goodness sake.
Look! Someone said this before me! Hooray!
http://www.jewcy.com/post/antimuslim_bigotry
"…a person who does not believe in the totalitarian and forced imposition of his or her faith upon society, and accepts the notion of a liberal democratic society, regardless of his or her other political beliefs, is more or less a ‘moderate’, for our purposes. There are plenty of those … If you fail to find one, you are simply not looking…"
I didn’t fail to find one. I failed to hear of any mass demonstration, or march, they ever held. I failed to know which political party they started. Let me know.
Save your breath. They are too scared to do those things. Or, there aren’t very many of them. It doesn’t matter which. Modern Islam contains no expressions of tolerance ,when its ACTIONS are considered. Actions matter, as life is not a philosophy class. My private opinion is Islam contains no philosophical base on which to build the "moderate" stance which you define so well. I hope earnestly that I am wrong. But that is they way it looks. I DON’T GET MY INFORMATION FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, AND YOU DO. Puhleeeze look at some uppity websites outside the anodyne universe of the starry-eyed Times, which likes to sing the song from Annie, The Musical all day, grinning saccarinely. Its stock price is eight dollars. But management gets dividends, and doesn’t care.
Your idealism is great. Getting realistic about the violence of men will not destroy your idealism. If it does destroy it, then you failed the Jew Test. But, I have every confidence you will pass.
Your argument fails on the most basic level. You simply cannot define ‘Islam’ or ‘Islamic beliefs’. These beliefs, like those of any other religion, are subject to the changing viewpoints of their practitioners. A quick example: compare the Catholics who undertook the Inquisition with the Catholics of today.
You can define specific political belief systems around which many people gather. Today, for example, ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel regularly vote for Ultra-Orthodox parties. These parties seek to further entrench Jewish law into the state (among their many other goals). So we may say: the supporters of Agudat Israel, or Degel Hatorah, want X and X policy to be achieved. But on the other hand there are ultra-Orthodox who do not vote at all, or even one in the Meretz party.
The same with persons of the Islamic faith. They may identify as secular, nominally Muslim persons. or as traditional Muslims, or as religious Muslims–and this, as yet, says nothing about their political beliefs. Now suppose they joined a political-religious organisation: the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), for instance, is rather popular. This says something about their political beliefs–they agree in substance with those of the MB, or more specifically their local MB–whether in Jordan, Egypt or the Palestinian Territories. Now of course the Muslim Brotherhood is an organisation that propagates racist conspiracy theories, and whose policies are really are quite inimical to any person in the West. The MB(s) seeks a totalitarian imposition of its interpretation of the Islamic faith on its own country and ultimately all other countries world-wide, however unrealistic the latter goal may be. Commonly they are called ‘Islamist’ or ‘fundamentalist’, and their beliefs accord, in some ways, with those of some Christians and Jews who wish to impose similar totalitarian states upon their respective societies.
You appear unconcinced that there is such a thing as a ‘moderate Muslim’. Frankly the term is a touch condescending and really quite useless unless you define it. Well, here is a simple definition–a person who does not believe in the totalitarian and forced imposition of his or her faith upon society, and accepts the notion of a liberal democratic society, regardless of his or her other political beliefs, is more or less a ‘moderate’, for our purposes.
There are plenty of those. Ali Eteraz, who posts on this website, is an obvious example. If you fail to find one, you are simply not looking.
I wish no one ill. I only argue with ideas. All people are OK. But, cultures can be discussed, and debated, or talk is about nothing but the weather, or which wrench works best. Those things are important, but they are not enough. Cultural questions are not going to go away, and not all arguments can be settled peacefully. Sometimes somebody wants something from you that is not negotiable. (Henny Youngman did not say, "Take my mother. Please.")
What I meant was, Thomas Jefferson could not be bought off with silk cushions, or the delights of comfortable dominance and high position. His thinking posits a completely different idea of The Good. This Good has deep religious roots in his Protestant Christianity. His Good hads nothing to do with earthly delights. Or after-world delights, either! His Good is subtle. It is the same as yours. It is about the Rights of Man, the Dignity of the Individual, that guy you assume, so wonderfully, means others no ill, unless he has a specific reason to. This universal well-meaning, honest man is a Western invention, and a wonderful one. Let it spread everywhere. But let it leave Britney behind. And, this honest man needs some kind of religion, to keep him honest.
They prefer their daughters draped with tablecloths, genitally mutilated and uneducated, to their ending up like Britney. That shouldn’t be the only choices! It wasn’t, in Mr. Jefferson’s day. Maybe we need SOME religion, just not fundamentalism.
The future is in your capable hands.
I haven’t studied "it," – Well, why not? The "it" is Islam. There are two main strains, one much larger, but there is certainly something to look at and discuss. There is information available with a few clicks. Nobody has to be interested in everything, but then, don’t set yourself up as knowledgeable, which you are doing.
"something tells me" ? Yes, we have our military all over the world. There have been sixty years of Pax Americana, and the world has made progress. No, it’s not a perfect world. It’s a much better one than sixty years ago. Ask your grandparents.
"I do think most people in most situations are well-intentioned. " That is what I meant by "you think everybody thinks like you". Your statement is a wonderful concept. It is a thoroughly Western concept, with deep religious roots in Judaism, Christianity and Greek thought. It is a cultural artifact. It is no more naturally-occuring than a pepperoni pizza with oregano and olives is a naturally occuring object. Yummy, but it took a long time to build.
I certainly don’t think Muslims are going to hell. I have no opinion about anybody’s prospects in the after-life. What I meant was that they are on the wrong side of history, like the Japanese samurais, and the Saxons of the time of Charlemagne. This is a concern. I am concerned for everybody. But not everybody is interested in my concern. Or yours.
You are right that it is a global choice between our way or theirs; you want it both ways. You want your way, and let them have their way. I wish that were possible. They rightly see that it is not, and they are doing their best to win. Even YOU concede that Jeffersonian democracy can’t live in the same world with fundamentalism. You seem to believe in a "moderate Islam". Well, do some research and see if you can find that thing.
Western meddling has not affected Muslim thinking. It may have caused some people to simply leave Islam, but it has not altered Islam. Why should it? You are showing an unconscious arrogance! Them listen to the West! They see no need for that. There was no liberal pope – equivalent in Islam, no analogue to when the Catholics "moved with the times" and adjusted some of their practices, such as saying Mass in the vernacular, instead of Latin. There is no equivalent to Protestantism in Islam. No Henry VIII. No translation of the core text, no King James Bible-equivalent. Before 1600 non-Jews could not read the Bible at all unless they knew Latin. When every non-Jew could read it for himself, the world became modern. You can get English translations of their core text anywhere (but you don’t bother to), but they do not read it in any translation, even where the local language is very different.
I wish cooperation and brotherhood could work, as they so often have before, and in time, they probably will again, including here. But in the meantime, there is an entrenched leadership, analogous to the Fermiers Generaux of seventeenth century France, which LIKES being in charge, and doesn’t see much in it for them in having all their dutiful members having Western-style rights. To be a little blunt, then they would have to get jobs and prove themselves authentically useful, and win elections on their authentic merits and abilities. When you are in charge already, that has no appeal.
You consider our clean, free life-style "profligate". Well, I don’t admire Britney Spears either. She seems to come with the soap, and the ballot box. Ugh. So, address that! We don’t have to spend our money on nonsense. Tell people.
The big fear is that Islam is capitalism’s handy-dandy solution to excess production, and uppity OSHA-loving workers. It solves both of those problems. But without any room for Thomas Jefferson. (HE is not interested in … well, … you know. The hookah, and what comes with it.)
Please think about that.
And stop being so Aristotelian. Modern science is great, and it came into existence when people stopped reasoning within received assumptions, and actually did rigorous observation, no matter how weird the results seemed. Like the orbits of the planets not being perfectly round. (They’re eliptical.) And a heavy object falling no faster than a light one. Don’t TALK, EXAMINE.
I haven’t studied "it," but something tells me (based on your warped logic and support for an erratic and thoroughly defeated presidential candidate with a similar lack of grasp of reality) that your claim that Islam is rooted in imperialism is a major stretch or an outright lie, and besides, even if it were true, the fact is that it is the United States, not Muslim countries, that has posted its vast military all over the world, so your fixation on intent in itself is meaningless – actions not words, the wise man says.
Actually, I harbor no illusions that ‘everyone’ thinks like me — those are your words. You are so incapable of making a coherent counterattack that you have to level false charges, in the grand old tradition of McCarthyism that your peeps live and breathe. Nor am I a purist, by any stretch; in actuality, I am solidly realist. I don’t exactly love my neighbor, but I do think most people in most situations are well-intentioned. This doesn’t mean I always trust everybody by any stretch, but it does mean that I don’t condemn a whole religion (as you are so intent on doing), especially when the country I live in has sent its military in to occupy much of that religion’s home base in order to suck the resources out of their land and prop up our profligate lifestyle. Your frothing accusations of Muslims wanting to take over the world, when it is your beloved country that more than any other nation controls the world, is hypocrisy of the highest (lowest?) order. This is so obvious that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at each ensuing absurd post; you would be better off writing this garbage at the Free Republic website.
This quote is most typical of your oversimplistic us-versus-them worldview:
"Islam can’t live with Thomas Jefferson in the same world. Muslims are human beings. I wish there were a way out for them, but there isn’t. I pray for peace, to a G-d I know is smarter than I am. Maybe HE can figure out a way out, so we can all be well."
The first sentence again wrongly conflates suicide bombers with all of Islam, or the more radical sects, absent the larger context of decades of Western meddling. It fails to point out that Jeffersonian democracy is incompatible with all fundamentalism, a crucial detail you have left out because it doesn’t fit neatly into your simple-minded worldview. Saying "I wish there were [sic] a way out for them" means what, exactly? Do you mean they’re going to hell because they don’t have your belief system? Praying to God is nice, but it might not mean anything, as the existence of God, or a God, is purely speculative. Rather than going through those charades, we should work on diplomacy and economic cooperation and brotherhood, which have a lot better track record of bringing change in the real world.
You might try really looking into the belief system of Islam. What it thinks, and what it teaches, and what it does. Yes, the Muslim world is a big place. But, there is a common core belief that spans all of it. You are failing Anthropology 101, which teaches that there is a very wide variety in human cultures. Oddly enough, it is YOU who are Euro-centric. You think everybody thinks like you. Well, there are people who prefer a unified, religious, world, and aren’t much interested in The Free Marketplace of Ideas. There are coercive systems in existence that don’t give the average guy much choice.
Your purity is impressive. You love your neighbor. But your ignorance of men’s badness gives you a naivete which is dangerous. I agree with your instincts. I just wish you knew more. You have been over-purified. Pure gold is too soft to be used as jewelry. They mix in copper and tin, and then it is usable. That’s what "carat" means. You are pure gold. Wonderful but not practical.
Please do not be afraid to look into the eye of the Other. EVEN YOU admit that he’s a troubling fellow, with your reference to Amsterdam, Paris, London.
You are whistling past the graveyard, to cheer yourself up, and you accuse ME of being in denial.
I am NOT saying "all Muslims are inherently evil". I am saying Islam can’t live with Thomas Jefferson in the same world. Muslims are human beings. I wish there were a way out for them, but there isn’t. I pray for peace, to a G-d I know is smarter than I am. Maybe HE can figure out a way out, so we can all be well.
I am on your side. I am a Jeffersonian too. But, you can’t co-exist with somebody who doesn’t want to co-exist with you, and is a vigorous fellow, and is willing to use his hands. Please Google. I know you know how.
Mr Anonymous,
One thing I forgot to put in the body of my last e-mail:
I am a secularist and agree that if I were in Amsterdam I would not want third world ideas and attitudes imposed on me; same for London, Paris, or any other cosmopolitan city with a large influx of immigrants. Yet this does not represent some monolithic desire on the part of Muslims to "take over" the world; it’s just another strain of cultural collision that occurs when people mix, inevitably.
Mr Anonymous,
Your one-dimensional view of the over one billion Muslims on the planet discredits everything you say about international issues. First off, you say that "they don’t have our military. They are using what they do have quite intelligently." They aren’t a monolithic entity, they are over a billion people, the vast majority of whom just want a regular meal and a roof over their heads. Conflating these billion people with the 19 who attacked us on 9/11 is disengenuous, as 99.9% of muslims are not scheming suicide bombers.
Yes, al Qaeda is evil, and needs to be stopped, but your claim that all muslims are inherently evil is plain ignorant, and even if it were true, again, our military, even in its beaten down state after an unnecessary war in Iraq, is vastly superior — al Qaeda can win a battle here and there, but they cannot beat us in a war, unless people like Bush take control of our government again and undermine the Constitution in the name of "keeping us safe."
Perhaps Hillary or Obama, in the height of a campaign to win the industrial state votes of people whose jobs were sucked away by trade, used harsh rhetoric on NAFTA, but their voting records, and the fact that every U.S. president in recent times has supported free trade agreements, virtually guarantee that they won’t "scrap" it, as you claim.
As to coal, it’s a stretch to say that Obama would "kill" it. It will continue to be mined until our hills are bare. At the same time, it’s the dirtiest, most outmoded source of energy — if we were more focused on the long-term health of the planet than short-term job protection, we would have phased it out ages ago.
Your claim that we don’t steal Muslim oil is counterfactual and flagrantly dishonest. For decades the U.S. has been moving our military in to the Middle East (just imagine how pissed off Americans would be if foreign powers invaded our country to commandeer our resources). Yes, technically we "buy" the oil, but we set the terms, as when we overthrew a democratically-elected leader in Iran in 1953 to put the Shah in (the Shah then de-nationalized oil, cutting the price in half for American consumers.) Thinking the U.S. can push everyone around indefinitely without repercussions is pure denial, dangerous denial in fact, that can only come from ignoring thousands of years of history.
Re Google; don’t worry, unlike your presidential candidate, soon to be an also-ran, I am very familiar with Google, probably more than you are, actually — I just don’t need to use it to know that Carter worked magic in the Israel-Egypt negotiations.
I agree that if I were in Amsterdam I would not want third world ideas and attitudes imposed on me, but
Fine. You explain.
I do know that word! It’s what Father Karras’ cute old mother called him in the Exorcist. "Dhimmi, why you do dis to me Dhimmi?"
BTW, I’m Armenian. My people were Dhimmi’s like Father Karras, but apparently even that wasn’t humiliation enough for the Muslim Turks; nothing less than full extermination would do!
There is a steady pressure on the West coming from the Muslims in many forms. No, they don’t have our military. They are using what they do have quite intelligently. 9/11 was not a philosophical discussion. Consider: ;you almost didn’t have either a military senior command, the Pentagon, or, a Capitol building, where your way of life works. Why isn’t that an attempted take-over of your country? The Twin Towers did not get nasty slogans spray-painted on them, with egg and toilet paper, and stink bombs in their lobbies. They were pulverized to nothing, and more than three thousand civilians were killed. You can’t just get annoyed and call the mothers of the force that achieved that, and make them pay for the broken window. That was an act of war. Only 19 of them died. They have a lot of men left. Somewhat fewer than before, fortunately. It was GOOD to get Saddam Hussein.
Hillary and Obama were talking about SCRAPPING NAFTA COMPLETELY, not tweaking it. This may yet happen. A lot is going to happen. There will be a lot of unintended consequences. Killing coal is going to cost the Little people, because their electricity comes from coal-fired generators.
We don’t steal Muslim oil. We buy it. They set the price. We prefer the mess over there, rather than here. Their wildlife is not as cute as ours.
Don’t be scared to Google something.
Google "Malmo" and find out what the Muslims can do WITHOUT a military, just with their hands and their singlemindness. It isn’t pretty. They are on record in a thousand ways that they consider themselves on the march to win it all.
Their leadership LIKES being revered and sitting on top. It is just such a CLASSICAL MARXST exploitation picture. THEY are the Opium of the People. Instead of Jesuits, it’s them. Different century, same old racket.
No, they don’t share their toys. They consider you Dhimmi. Google that too. It’s an interesting, and old, but very current, word. NO WAY do you know that word. Nobody does.
Sweden stayed neutral, and what did the U.S. do during the Holocaust? Perhaps that pundit knew more about history than both of us Rob.
I concur with Factinista on taxes. I paid a higher effective rate when I was making $10/hour during college than I pay now; and mind you, I fall into the $250k+ category that will get a rate hike under Obama. And those people whom you think will park their money in tax shelters in the Caymans already do that now b/c they don’t want to pay 36%, which is what they pay now, when they can pay 0%.
Wow, Anonymous, you never stop — I almost wish I had so much time and so little grasp of the issues.
Your claim that we had two choices (invade Iraq, or…be taken over by muslims) is so ignorant it’s in the category of unintentional humor, an onrunning theme on the loony right. I personally don’t care for the cultural aspects of Islam you listed, as I’m thoroughly Western, but they’re not imposing them on the United States, and there is zero threat that they will, because even if they wanted to do so, their militaries aren’t anywhere near the strength of ours. And in fact, in another unintentional irony, it is as a matter of fact the U.S. in particular who is imposing itself on the muslims, to steal their oil; this is painstakingly obvious to anyone with a rudimentary awareness of international relations and the personal credibility to speak honestly on the issue.
So, back to Bush’s five trillion of debt, we have one totally unncessary and strategically counterproductive war, and (what you of course failed to mention) staggering tax cuts for the richest 1%, which we didn’t have under Clinton, when we had record surpluses. Coincidence?
I don’t need to Google Carter’s peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. They’ve gotten along fine for thirty years, which is all the evidence one needs. As to Obama and AIPAC, the fact that he chose to speak to AIPAC the day after he got the nomination shows his priorities, and again, if he’s so bad for Israel, why will he get 70% or more of the Jewish vote? Are you saying that those 70% aren’t as enlightened as you are? That’s a scary thought…
Your theory that NAFTA was the main thrust behind the Clinton boom is unique, to say the least — can you cite a single study by a prestigious economist that pushes this idea? Setting aside the fact the planet can only take so much consumption and extraction of resources (the unavoidable byproduct of sustained economic growth), and that trade lowers wages for blue-collar American workers (when it isn’t completely levelling their industries, as it has done in the rust belt), trade is only one of many factors in the economy. Making tweaks to NAFTA would be like throwing a stone in the ocean.
Well, all that debt is because we had to fund the war. Wars are expensive, and they are not all unnecessary. The war is the only reason it is not yet a Muslim world. It still might become one. I have a problem with that. Do YOU want to wear a table-cloth over YOUR head in public, never go out alone, and have no bank account, driver’s license or education? How about the right to draw an insulting image of somethiing that ticks you off? Or say what you want? Or pray any way you want? Or not at all?
As for Obama’s going to AIPAC, he says whatever the audience du jour wants to hear. He "clarified" his AIPAC remarks later, changing his story. Why don’t you know that? It was in the news. Don’t cherry-pick the parts you like.
As for the tax thing, well, a clever man like Buffet seems to be telling us that Big people can indeed avoid tax. Why doesn’t that make you nervous? YOU say "they shelter their money". Read your own post.
As for Carter and Egypt and Israel, nobody thinks much of that. Google it.
Clinton’s prosperity had a lot to do with NAFTA. Mrs. Clinton and Obama both have implied they would scrap it. Deference to US Unions. I trace the beginning of the current economic slide to exactly that. I know I would have cashed a NAFTA-dependent business the minute I heard that from BOTH Democratic contenders.
I voted. This is a great country. Everybody waiting patiently. Respectful of the individual. Half of the country is going to be miserable very soon. I have had to lecture myself that the People know best. There are so many of them, and each one is doing his or her own thinking. Let the world learn from the spectacle.
I am really glad 9/11 did not completely succeed.
It’s amazing that you-all are still lying about Obama’s "insufficient support" for Israel and his tax policies, all the evidence to the contrary. Fortunately a majority (or decisive plurality) of the country sees through all the fog you’re pumping into the picture.
The truth is that talking tough and getting us in unnecessary wars – McCain’s way – doesn’t help Israel, and you can bag Obama all you want for offering to sit down with Iran, but it’s a lot less dicey than bombing them. If you think diplomacy doesn’t work, just look at what Carter accomplished between Egypt and Israel. Another thing, Obama spoke at AIPAC the day after he got the Democratic nomination, so any claims that Obama — or any American president — won’t come to Israel’s aide as needed is idiotic. If you need any more verification, just watch what percentage of the Jewish vote Obama gets; it’ll be the highest of any demographic other than African-American.
The tax lies just never stop, ‘cuz the right has so little (of substance) to work with. The biggest component of this lie is ignoring everything but the progressive income tax, as Mr. Anonymous does. As Warren Buffet has said on more than one occasion, when one includes FICA tax, sales taxes and every other form of taxation, tax rates are roughly even, and in many cases the super-rich pay effectively lower taxes because they shelter their money, whatwith their being so patriotic and all. Also, Anonymous’s claim that raising taxes only on the wealthy will be a disaster has the feel of dejavu about it…I remember hearing that when Clinton raised taxes on the upper-income tax brackets too, and well, Clinton presided over the best economy this country has ever had, whereas W., who did every supply-side tax scheme he could get away with, has saddled us with five trillion dollars in debt, two recessions, and anemic economic growth. In fact, the 22 million jobs created in the Clinton Bomm equals or exceeds the job growth for Raygun and both Bushes combined.
Next?
"Recently I heard some idiot pundit complaining that under Obama America would become a "socialist" country like, God forbid, Sweden! "
That idiot knows more about history than you do. Sweden remained neutral while six million Jews were being slaughtered. Will Obama be neutral if Israel is threatened with nukes. You can count on it.
If tax rates get high, people who can put their money in places like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg, Big people, will. Little People will be left behind, dealing with capital flight, and bad things that come with that. (Yes, one has to live part of the year where one’s money is. For a very different tax rate, it is worth it. After all, they live nicely.) There will always be these tax havens.
Your faith is misplaced. If you want to have faith in something positive though invisible, say a bracha to the G-d of your ancestors. HE doesn’t leave you. Your upper class will. THEY are paying most of the taxes right now – did you even know that? Do you think they love maintaining zillions of their fellow men? Up to a point, but not infinitely. After all, they are in business, just like you. Yes, countries can go out of business. Russia did. They simply printed money when they needed it. That is horribly naive. We are about to do that. Capitalism isn’t a "good" system, it is the only system. Unless you want to live in tribal areas and do your best off the land. Ask an Orienteering graduate if that is fun.
You mention Sweden. It is a small country. They don’t have the expenses we have, such as being a major producer, with a large dynamic labor supply, and also being the world’s policeman. Nobody immigrates to Sweden but Muslims. In fact, Muslims are indeed burdening that little place, and messing up its contained, isolated paradise. Google "Malmo Sweden" and learn something.
Your first line says it all: "Perhaps it was a circus act for the gullible and schmaltz-inclined…" I too enjoyed McCain’s grand show in 2000, in particular his spirited attacks on Bush, and have found him to be more dignified in his bearing than any other Republican who works the talk show circuit, but so what?
Choosing a president should always and only be about deciding which set of policies you prefer, because that’s what effects peoples’ lives, which is all that really matters. Presidents make thousands of decisions that ripple country and world-wide, and contrary to what the author says, the McCain of 2000 wasn’t a "centrist" or a "moderate" or any of the meaningless labels the media affixes. McCain was rhetorically to the middle, but his public record day in and day out both before and since has been clearly to the right. He didn’t suddenly go to the dark side in 2001 — he had been there through most of his congressional career, whether it was opposing labor, the MLK holiday, environmental policies, or a woman’s right to choose and family planning, caring not a whit about the underprivileged, pushing deregulation of everything in sight and the military-industrial complex, and on and on and on. He simply saw an opening to Bush’s left in 2000 and exploited it to the full.
This cult of personality has blinded a lot of people to McCain’s real agenda – obscured by his grandstanding on a handful of things on which he disagrees with his party — and to how much better off we would have been with Al Gore than McCain or Bush. Gore had far more experience than McCain, vastly more knowledge of globalization, technology, climate change and everything other than defense, on which he was no slouch, and wouldn’t have appointed the right-wing scary judges that McCain would have pushed. The fact that Gore is now a lionized Nobel holder and McCain is a soon-to-be-vanquished loyal FOB (Friend of Bush) tells us all we need to know.
You really do have a way of preaching to the choir. Is it hard trying to convince people that our armed forces and veterans sacrifice more than the rest of us? Or that capitalism is generally a worthy concept that has served America well?
What cracks me up is that you think all of those things that make America great are going to come crashing down because the tax rate on people making over $250K is going to go up from 36% to 39.6%. Get real! Entrepreneurs aren’t going to stop innovating, and people aren’t going to stop dreaming about ways to make more money because of this 3.6% difference at the top. Are you going to stop working all of a sudden b/c you will pay a bit more tax when you reach the $250k mark, or if you’re already there, are you going to stop working because your tax rate went up 3.6%? I don’t recall the economy grinding to a halt under Clinton when tax rates on the wealthiest were at 39.6%.
Recently I heard some idiot pundit complaining that under Obama America would become a "socialist" country like, God forbid, Sweden! Oh my God, Sweden, oh no, not that shithole Sweden! What will we do if we become like Sweden! Who will we look down on without homeless people? Where will we get the money to build new Women’s restrooms at the Capital? How will we weed out the weak if everyone has state of the art medical coverage? Oh God NO, NOT LIKE SWEDEN!
Anyway, I’m not saying that you’re an idiot, but your post reminds me of that idiot pundit. Let’s get back to reality. Obama doesn’t offer socialism any more than anyone else who has run for President in the last 30 years, and if you’re going to try to scare people with predictions, at least give examples of shitholes, not places like Sweden, or more generically Europe!
Israel has Muslims in high, executive positions in both its government, universities and hospitals. There is an Arab bloc in its Knesset. It maintains a separate, free, Muslim public school system. Everything official is both in the Hebrew and Arabic languages. You didn’t know all that. How would you. It’s not in the New York Times. No, Israel is not an Arab country. There are a lot of Arab countries. Arabs in Israel complain, but they don’t leave. They could.
Well, your remark will get a lot of votes for McCain, anyway. As an Obama supporter, you are showing your true colors.
Europe is the way it is because it is basically a small place, and an old-fashioned, feudal place. Socialism is just feudalism. Under feudalism, the local Big Man takes care of you, and, in return, you go along with him, and what he needs from you. America is not like that. You take care of yourself here. Although we do have a safety net, which is fine.
Energetic people who like to carve their own life come here, apparently. As you know, money doesn’t fall from the sky, so it must be the culture. Capitalism simply harnesses people’s energies better. Necessity is the mother of invention. What’s so hard about that? And getting to keep your property is at the core of human dignity. What’s so hard about that? Yes, we contribute taxes to the public good. But we get to vote on it. No taxation without representation. What’s so hard about that?
Why do people who distrust their parents to direct their lives trust some remote official to do it? At least they have met their parents.
How do you know I didn’t "pull my freight"? Did you peak at my bill of lading?
And sure, Europe sucks b/c they’re too kind to Muslims, especially Paris and the French Riviera, it’s really lame there. Better to live in a place that knows how to treat their Muslims. Let’s all move to Israel.
Obama is taking aim at capitalism.
The system all those immigrants want to come to. Maybe they are all just crazy, or on the lam from bad mothers-in-law. But there are an awful lot of them. Your family built a life in capitalism. Ayers is just a guilt-ridden rich boy. Unfortunately, he is both equipped and positioned to inflict his nonsense on everybody.
Marty, don’t vote for Ayers. Look at Europe. They are POOR, Marty. Adorno was wrong. Foucault was wrong. Real wrong.
It is better for 4,000 people to be dead than many more. We have a volunteer military. Absolutely nobody HAS to go. But SOME people understand you can’t always just sit there, minding your own business, and have a country. SOME people understand you have to defend it, to have it at all. Those people don’t like losing family but they are realists. You don’t like losing family either, but you are not a realist. You owe them rent on their dead family. They died so you don’t have to, and you didn’t contribute any dead bodies. You are living off them. You didn’t pull your freight.
1) Even the police can’t go to the suburbs of Paris. Too Muslim.
2) Even the police can’t go to large parts of Sweden, such as Malmo. Too Muslim.
3) It’s not a joke to take a bus in London. Too Muslim.
4) One of my local synagogues just got a pseudo-bomb with "Jihadi" languages on the package. A week ago. This time, it was fake. This time. Chilly, however.
5) There have been massacres in London, Spain, Russia. But not here, since 9/11. Do you think they stopped trying?
Sometimes fear isn’t mongered, it’s justified.
On 9/11, the other two planes were aimed at the Capital in Washington and the Pentagon, which had just been reinforced on that side. Without the failure of those two planes to achieve the same success as in New York, this election would not now be taking place at all.
If you had been president instead of Bush, I wonder what you would have done? Sometimes you have to take it to him. That is learned early, when one is a guy.
Marty, I love your article. You said all the things that swirl around in our brains but that most of us don’t have the talent to organize and express in writing like you do.
And needless to say the above two comments, which are nothing more than fear-mongering as usual, do nothing but support your argument. I particularly liked the "you’d be dead if it wasn’t for Bush" thesis. I wonder how the military families of the 4000+ American soldiers who died would feel about that gem of an argument.
Marty, Bush wasn’t so bad. He swore on the Bible to keep you alive, and you are alive. And, the price paid for that has not been out of line with the usual cost of such merchandise. 1) We are in a war, and most of us are not aware of that. That is good presidential craftsmanship. 2) We are winning, and most of us are not aware of that either. That is a heavily biased media.
Of course other people around the world want us to lead. It’s much cheaper for them that way, silly.
Marty, you are thinking with the John Lennon side of your otherwise excellent brain. That is the wrong side, for this problem.
McCain may not be perfect, but the other guy is not material at all.
"…And even if he does become the worldwide Islamo-Antichrist who gnaws upon the skulls of the Enslaved White Masses for breakfast, it wouldn’t be that much worse than Bush, right?… " – YES, MARTY, IT WOULD BE, MUCH WORSE. Guys like you, who like to think for themselves, don’t do well in that kind of society.
It is easy, Marty, to get realistic once in office, and move leftward, saying "yes" to people who want things. It is much harder to get disciplined, and move to the right, once in office, and say "no" to people who want things. Saying yes is much easier than saying no. If in office, McCain, or even Palin, will keep you alive, and not force your children to learn Creationism.
Face it Marty, there is no McCainiac. Nobody gets excited about McCain. He just can do it. But competently, not excitingly. Obama is John Lennon, with his "Imagine". Well, Lennon was just an entertainer. LSD is not good for you, even though his song about it was great and I can still sing it. Let’s not elect him president.
Marty, you are not going to like President Ayers, and that is what you are at risk for.
In this climate, it takes sooo much courage to bash Sarah Palin. I am sure you will be brave enough to parody President Obama. Prepare for left-wingers to be the "angry and scary ones" once again and prepare to very carefully edit your future obnoxious rants if they are against "The One".
Dare I say you will be missing Sarah Palin like a badly behaved spoiled child misses his mother when he gets sent away to military school.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!